Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
1996 E320, 2005 Toyota Camry
Joined
·
1,810 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I can't remember where I read this (it was in the 190 forum), but someone posted that a 190 diesel shouldn't be driven over 60 mph. Is there justification for this statement or is it nonsense? Thanks.
Hemersam
 

·
Registered
1984 190D 2.2
Joined
·
2,458 Posts
It's nonsence. 60mph is where I get the best mpg.
I have taken mine to 95mph before and it still felt and sounded amazing :)
 

·
Premium Member
W-1-2-3 Go!
Joined
·
16,161 Posts
I can't remember where I read this (it was in the 190 forum), but someone posted that a 190 diesel shouldn't be driven over 60 mph. Is there justification for this statement or is it nonsense? Thanks.
Hemersam
60 is the best compromise between speed and fuel economy.

Not too close to 55 to be too slow, but just right under the speed limit to be safe. Above that and MPG drops.
 

·
Registered
'85 2.3-16 '99 C280 '11 GLK350
Joined
·
4,805 Posts
It truly is a pity that diesel prices are above gasoline. Considering all the sacrifices in acceleration that diesel owners endure, the only way to recoup that cost is by driving on highways in "top gear". The 190D was never really intended for life "on the street,"
 

·
Registered
1984 190D 2.2
Joined
·
2,458 Posts
It truly is a pity that diesel prices are above gasoline. Considering all the sacrifices in acceleration that diesel owners endure, the only way to recoup that cost is by driving on highways in "top gear". The 190D was never really intended for life "on the street,"
I hate that diesel is more expensive than gasoline. It goes through less refining, so it should be less.
Stupid supply and demand..
 

·
Premium Member
W-1-2-3 Go!
Joined
·
16,161 Posts
It truly is a pity that diesel prices are above gasoline. Considering all the sacrifices in acceleration that diesel owners endure, the only way to recoup that cost is by driving on highways in "top gear". The 190D was never really intended for life "on the street,"
A 5-speed would definitely be a huge bonus for dieselers, but it's not much of a drop in engine speed on the highway.

I completely agree, the price of diesel negates any benefits of the lowered fuel consumption.
 

·
Registered
1984 190D 2.2
Joined
·
2,458 Posts
I've made a spreadsheet on my computer, and even considering the high price of diesel, my diesel averages 2 cents less per mile than my other most fuel efficient car.
Now I do have to deal with the slow acceleration and 60mph highway speeds, but Id say its still worth the money.
 

·
Registered
1992 190e 2.6, 1995 e320 Wagon
Joined
·
549 Posts
I've made a spreadsheet on my computer, and even considering the high price of diesel, my diesel averages 2 cents less per mile than my other most fuel efficient car.
Now I do have to deal with the slow acceleration and 60mph highway speeds, but Id say its still worth the money.

Diesels live longer though, don't they? I was under the impression that they cost less to maintain as well.
 

·
Registered
1984 190D 2.2
Joined
·
2,458 Posts
Diesel's last forever, you cant kill them.
Not sure what others will say, but I have had to do no work to the engine besides normal maintenance. Been a very cheap/ reliable car. Never has left me stranded (except in my own driveway when the transmission line broke).
 

·
Registered
1996 E320, 2005 Toyota Camry
Joined
·
1,810 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
60?

Your replies were what I thought. Perhaps the author of that sentence really meant to refer to the decreased mileage over 60; I don't know. One reply puzzled me: "these cars were not meant for the street." The 190 was (and probably still is) used widely in Western Europe as taxi cabs (the street). Anyway, I love mine and plan to drive it for years and years (provided I last that long). :D
Hemersam
Thanks for your replies.
 

·
Premium Member
W-1-2-3 Go!
Joined
·
16,161 Posts
Diesels are a simpler design and on a 190 chassis the OM602 is pretty potent on a light car. The torque is sufficient to get it up to speed especially if you've got a 2.5L turbo with a manual 5-speed (yeah dream on). I know others who have these and will never let them go :D

Diesels are also great cruisers, their lack of instant power make them seem unsuitable for city driving but the torque is what gets them going. In city driving shifting to 3rd almost always gets you up to speed quickly. I sometimes drive this way on my 300D I'm sure it's the same with a 190D.

What I like about the MB gas engines is they have lots of torque but it's quite high up in the RPM range compared to diesels of the same era that on the highway the diesels can easily pass others while the gas engine'd models require a bit more oomph but the higher HP output makes up for this.

They can get to speed/deliver power quickly (higher HP) while the diesels take slower to do this (lower HP) but have a fat torque band down low on the engine RPM range, where most of the cruising happens.
 

·
Registered
1984, 201.122, OM601.921, G717.410
Joined
·
504 Posts
Let me do a little counting on my fingers...

1984 190E 2.3 4AT: $3.30 per gal / unadjusted EPA Hwy 31MPG = $0.106 per mile

1984 190E 2.2 5MT: $3.60 per gal / unadjusted EPA Hwy 51MPG = $0.071 per mile

I just don't understand the complaint that running diesel costs 33% less than petrol at current prices.
 

·
Registered
1996 E320, 2005 Toyota Camry
Joined
·
1,810 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
mileage

I have checked the mileage very carefully on my 60K '85 2.0 Euro diesel AT(ca. 35% freeway & 65% 'round town) and I get from 32 to 35 mpg, depending on "the weight of my right foot." Is this in the same range as other diesel owners?
Hemersam
 

·
Registered
'85 2.3-16 '99 C280 '11 GLK350
Joined
·
4,805 Posts
Your replies were what I thought. Perhaps the author of that sentence really meant to refer to the decreased mileage over 60; I don't know. One reply puzzled me: "these cars were not meant for the street." The 190 was (and probably still is) used widely in Western Europe as taxi cabs (the street). Anyway, I love mine and plan to drive it for years and years (provided I last that long). :D
Hemersam
Thanks for your replies.
Quite true, diesel taxis are the norm, in fact diesels are much more popular than gassers in Europe . . . diesel fuel in Europe does have significant price advantages, including lower taxes and in some cases, government subsidies. Taxi use is predictable given the cost and relative low maintenance for the OM engines. So, if you're making money from driving in Europe, then a gasser would not be your choice. However, back in the US . . .
 

·
Registered
87 300D 5 speed
Joined
·
5,334 Posts
Let me do a little counting on my fingers...

1984 190E 2.3 4AT: $3.30 per gal / unadjusted EPA Hwy 31MPG = $0.106 per mile

1984 190E 2.2 5MT: $3.60 per gal / unadjusted EPA Hwy 51MPG = $0.071 per mile
I don't know how you're coming up with these numbers, but they are NOT from the EPA.
Model 1 Vehicle Characteristics
 

·
Registered
1984 190D 2.2
Joined
·
2,458 Posts
I have checked the mileage very carefully on my 60K '85 2.0 Euro diesel AT(ca. 35% freeway & 65% 'round town) and I get from 32 to 35 mpg, depending on "the weight of my right foot." Is this in the same range as other diesel owners?
Hemersam
That sounds about right. I get 32 city and 37 highway usually on my '84 2.2 auto
 

·
Registered
1984, 201.122, OM601.921, G717.410
Joined
·
504 Posts
REAL EPA DATA

these numbers... are NOT from the EPA.

Sorry tjts1, in the future you may want to do the proper research before stating erroneous information. I quoted MPG from actual results produced by the manufacturer on the track -- before EPA statistical adjustment for estimated MPG.


Here are the raw data entries from the EPA database file (84mfgui.dat), which used to be available for download -- before they had to make their website "idiot proof" so it is only useful for "idiots":

1984F 3280190 D 2.2/190 E 2.3 134FIM5 484081611513783 9 2200 20010MERCEDES-BENZ 35 51 41 $ 515( 2.2L) (DIESEL) 4DR- 84/12


1984F 3280190 D 2.2/190 E 2.3 140FIA4 484081611513783 9 2200 20020MERCEDES-BENZ 23 31 26 $ 816( 2.3L) (FFS) 4DR- 84/12


For instructions, read this:
EPA Fuel Economy Guide Database

Here is the 84guide.txt version (this forum does not appear to post tab delimiters):

SUBCOMPACT CARS
AVERAGE MILES PER BODY TYPE
MANUFACTURER ANNUAL GALLON ENGINE DESCRIPTION TRANS- FUEL INTERIOR SPACE
+_______________________
CAR LINE FUEL COST EST CMB HWY CID/CYL (TYPE) MISSION SYS PASSENGER/TRUNK OR CARGO(CU.FT.)
+ ____________________________ _________ ___ ___ ___ _________________________ _______ ____ ___________ ___________ ___________


0MERCEDES-BENZ
+_______________________
0 190 D 2.2/190 E 2.3 $ 515 35 39 44 134( 2.2L) / 4(DIESEL) A4 FI 4DR- 84/12
0 $ 529 34 37 42 134( 2.2L) / 4(DIESEL) A4 FI
(CALIF)
0 $ 529 34 40 50 134( 2.2L) / 4(DIESEL) M5 FI
(CALIF)
0 $ 515 35 41 51 134( 2.2L) / 4(DIESEL) M5 FI
0 $ 816 23 26 31 140( 2.3L) / 4(FFS) A4 FI
0 $ 816 23 28 37 140( 2.3L) / 4(FFS) M5 FI
 

·
Registered
1985 190E 2.3-16
Joined
·
1,583 Posts
Some interesting diesel facts...

Why they get better mileage: the heavier diesel fuel contains more energy than the lighter gasoline. I remember a test of a 280E and 300D done by a car magazine many years ago. In their economy tests, they found that both cars burned the same weight of fuel. Interesting... also, a diesel has no throttle plate, so it's not fighting itself to maintain a vacuum when idling, so they tend to be especially economical at idle.

Why they tend to last longer: diesel fuel, being essentially a light oil, doesn't wash the engine oil off of the parts it comes into contact with: valve stems and cylinder walls. Gasoline does.

Why they have so much more torque, and are great for pulling trailers, hauling heavy loads, etc... it's how the fuel burns. Diesel fuel burns slower than gasoline. At 4000 rpm, a gas engine is pushing on the piston for perhaps 15% of it's power stroke. At the same speed, a diesel engine is pushing on the piston for 80% of it's power stroke. Smoother, steadier delivery of power. This is also why most diesel engines tend to redline around 4500-5000 rpm - any faster and the fuel is still burning when the exhaust valve opens.

Why diesel costs more than gas, when it used to be cheaper: some of this is the cost of removing sulfur, us old timers remember when diesel exhaust used to really stink. Around 1992 is when ultra low sulfur diesel was mandated. Mainly, it's supply and demand. The airline industry is partially to blame: the explosion in air travel created a huge demand for kerosene, which diesel can be cracked into during the refining process.
 

·
Registered
87 300D 5 speed
Joined
·
5,334 Posts
Sorry tjts1, in the future you may want to do the proper research before stating erroneous information. I quoted MPG from actual results produced by the manufacturer on the track -- before EPA statistical adjustment for estimated MPG.


Here are the raw data entries from the EPA database file (84mfgui.dat), which used to be available for download -- before they had to make their website "idiot proof" so it is only useful for "idiots":

1984F 3280190 D 2.2/190 E 2.3 134FIM5 484081611513783 9 2200 20010MERCEDES-BENZ 35 51 41 $ 515( 2.2L) (DIESEL) 4DR- 84/12


1984F 3280190 D 2.2/190 E 2.3 140FIA4 484081611513783 9 2200 20020MERCEDES-BENZ 23 31 26 $ 816( 2.3L) (FFS) 4DR- 84/12


For instructions, read this:
EPA Fuel Economy Guide Database

Here is the 84guide.txt version (this forum does not appear to post tab delimiters):

SUBCOMPACT CARS
AVERAGE MILES PER BODY TYPE
MANUFACTURER ANNUAL GALLON ENGINE DESCRIPTION TRANS- FUEL INTERIOR SPACE
+_______________________
CAR LINE FUEL COST EST CMB HWY CID/CYL (TYPE) MISSION SYS PASSENGER/TRUNK OR CARGO(CU.FT.)
+ ____________________________ _________ ___ ___ ___ _________________________ _______ ____ ___________ ___________ ___________


0MERCEDES-BENZ
+_______________________
0 190 D 2.2/190 E 2.3 $ 515 35 39 44 134( 2.2L) / 4(DIESEL) A4 FI 4DR- 84/12
0 $ 529 34 37 42 134( 2.2L) / 4(DIESEL) A4 FI
(CALIF)
0 $ 529 34 40 50 134( 2.2L) / 4(DIESEL) M5 FI
(CALIF)
0 $ 515 35 41 51 134( 2.2L) / 4(DIESEL) M5 FI
0 $ 816 23 26 31 140( 2.3L) / 4(FFS) A4 FI
0 $ 816 23 28 37 140( 2.3L) / 4(FFS) M5 FI
Again, I don't know how you're coming up with these numbers. These cars never got 51mpg, they will never get 51mpg and the EPA never said so. Hit the link I posted and you can see the before and after adjustment numbers.
cheers
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top